Trump disagrees with Georgia’s decision to reopen economy; CDC chief tries to soften controversial coronavirus remarks.
Published: April 22, 2020 at 7:59 p.m. ET
By Jeffry Bartash
Fresh controversies dog White House fight against coronavirus
In politics, footnotes are for the historians to ferret out and determine arbitrarily whether or not to use them in describing past events.
Accused of being anti-science because he is not a Democrat, the critics imply that the voice of reason is the advice of science and their representatives. This past week, the public has been made aware of two unsettling scientific fiascos. First, we were informed that our models for this pandemic are extremely unreliable, or in scientific terms, statistically significant. The projected rates of infection, deaths, and spread have been continually "readjusted." It is normal to readjust data as new data emerges, but when the data goes beyond your standard deviation rates it is time to question the model.
Most recently we learned that the actual testing kits first used were contaminated with the virus itself, making the results of the test invalid and risking those tested who may not have been contaminated with contamination. The purpose of the models were to help prepare our country using the projections as the basis for evaluating our supplies and our capacity to deal with the expected surge at the hospitals. Money was allocated as a result of these projections and as has been recently reported, makeshift MASH and triage stations that were constructed have been disassembled and sent elsewhere after little or no use at the initial site. An excess of some supplies along with, used equipment has now been returned for possible relocation and distribution.
All of these actions are normal and considered reasonable at the time they were carried out. Some people said that these actions were not enough initially when they were implemented and the fact is that many of these measures were more than what was needed. Is the government now going to be accused of wasting funds after the fact?
The President has been accused of not following the advice of the "experts", but when the "experts" that are followed are wrong, then what? The President put together a team to address the current status of this pandemic and to plan when and how to reopen "the country". This reference shows that Georgia's governor has decided to reopen parts of Georgia that is contrary to the phases that were outlined by the President's task force. Should the President accept the governor's decision as he has even though he has publicly stated that he disagrees with the governor's decision? Or, should the President overrule this governor? Future historians may look at these footnotes prior to their summaries of this period. Today, the political pundits pass down their judgements.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.